[Damn True]

I just heard about this site yesterday. Looked over a bit of it. Addmitedly, it looks like about 1/3 of it is highly biased editorial, but there are some interesting tidbits to be found as well.

http://www.junkscience.com/

 

[Toshi]

i only have the patience to debunk one of that website's claims, #1 on their "top 10 most embarrassing moments" list.

it makes reference to a study by WC Willett without citing it. through some creative pubmed searching i found the article. it's title is "Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women" if you're interested in reading it yourself. i can't attach it since it's too large.

The researchers? contention that soda intake is linked with type 2 diabetes is also not borne out by their data or anyone else?s. The media-spotlighted claim of an 83 percent increase in diabetes among consumers of more than one soda per day ? itself an inherently weak association from a statistical perspective ? is misleading.

When the researchers statistically adjusted their results for bodyweight (a risk factor for diabetes) and for caloric intake (a proxy measure for consumption of sweetened foods other than soda), the 83 percent increase dropped to an even more statistically dubious (and soft-pedaled) 32 percent increase. That result is of the same magnitude as the study?s reported 21 percent increase in diabetes among consumers of more than one diet soft drink per day. Diet drinks, of course, do not contain any sugar at all.

the above two paragraphs are misleading and belie a lack of understanding of statistics, namely p values and confidence intervals. speaking of "83%" and "32% increases" and things being "statistically dubious" are right-wing FUD tactics of the highest order.

the sole valid point on that page seems to be that a study with seemingly contradictory results, "A Prospective Study of Sugar Intake and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Women", should have been cited. claiming that the author must have been aware of the other study because both are affiliated with Harvard Medical School is ridiculous, on the other hand -- it's a huge organization. furthermore, the studies were on different things: one on soft drinks and fruit punch in particular, the other on general sugar (glucose, fructose, etc.) intake.

After adjustment for potential confounders, women consuming 1 or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day had a relative risk [RR] of type 2 diabetes of 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.36; P<.001 for trend) compared with those who consumed less than 1 of these beverages per month. Similarly, consumption of fruit punch was associated with increased diabetes risk (RR for 1 drink per day compared with <1 drink per month, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.33-3.03; P = .001).

ok, so looking at the original study's actual numbers i kind of see where the junkscience author came up with "83% increase", assuming he meant "1.83 relative risk." the killer is that that result was ALREADY ADJUSTED FOR POTENTIAL CONFOUNDERS as it states so clearly there, so i don't know from which orifice the junkscience guy pulled that 32% figure from.

NB for those who don't understand statistics and who are easily confused by the junk science guy's "statistically dubious" claim: that 1.83 RR figure has a confidence interval of 1.42-2.36. that is, repeat the study and there's a 95% chance that the results will lie within those bounds. since it doesn't cross 1 the results are statistically significant by definition.

god, i hate pseudoscience and pseudoscientists who play word games all day long.

stop. posting. trash.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Cool site.... don't let the limp-wristed keep you down DT!

Just remember, they are the same peep's who don't think the Pentagon was hit by airliner on 9/11...

 

[Westy]

god, i hate pseudoscience and pseudoscientists who play word games all day long.

stop. posting. trash.

Sounds like someone needs some magnetic bracelets to get their aura properly aligned.

 

[Damn True]

A dazzling display of irrelevant material Toshi.

The man's point was that this single study which claims to completely overturn current thinking on weight gain and diabetes not only contradicts countless other studies but other studies from within the organization that originated it as well and does so despite the fact that "Harvard Medical School’s JoAnn Manson was a co-author of both studies"

The root being that statistical association does not prove causation.

Again, like I said in the original post, some of the stuff on the site appears to be somewhat biased, but it does raise some interesting questions regarding unsubstantiated claims made by organizations to further a given agenda which are then repeated as fact by the media.

I particularly like this deconstruction of "Busness Ethics Magazine's" Top corporate citizen award http://www.csrwatch.com/Dubious_Distinction.htm

 

[Toshi]

the previous studies were on sugar consumption, not soda consumption per se. if this study's conclusions are repeatable there are any number of ways to explain the results. point is that good science relies on evidence, not "common sense" as do pundits and wags.

 

[Damn True]

the previous studies were on sugar consumption, not soda consumption per se. if this study's conclusions are repeatable there are any number of ways to explain the results. point is that good science relies on evidence, not "common sense" as do pundits and wags.

Exactly, but in this case the common sense is leaning upon peer reviewed studies by The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine and the American Diabetes Association.
Willet's claims contradict actual repeatable proven epidimilogical (sp?) studies using only statistical association.

 

[H8R]

http://www.junkthreadtopics.com/damntrue/ghey.htm